Get documents about "CCC Central City Plan 2011
Document Sample
CCC Central City Plan 2011
From:
http://static2.stuff.co.nz/files/ChristchurchCityCouncilDraftCentralCityPlan.pdf
PDF Pagination emphasis added
Introduction to Notes on the Christchurch Central City draft Plan 2011
Welcome to a journey through the draft Central City Plan. While nearly the
entire plan is covered here Spokes is a cycle advocacy group and that is our
primary focus.
Transport proposals in this plan often mix types, public, active and auto. The
proposed Parks and Greenways also provide for walking and cycling.
Cycling’s potential is unrecognized and only partially provided for, as a subset to
public and car transport. (Over twice as many commuters cycle as rely on public
transport in Christchurch)
While cycling is often depicted and mentioned, the commitment is questionable.
Walking is provided for, as a necessary part of driving and Public Transport
(PT). This is consistent with CCC’s long standing neglect of the Council adopted
2004 Cycling Strategy. A great strategy with great pictures, text and targets
which has not been delivered as promised.
This plan sees public Transport (PT) and cars as what people will really need.
This reflects car centric thinking and unfamiliarity with cycling. Most people can
cycle 5-10 k’s within a few weeks of taking up the practice. PT and cars will be
required for the aged and infirm and for the many who have grown soft through
over reliance on cars. Energy prices are quickly pricing that habit out of reach
for most, we need to plan and build for the future.
Read carefully for what is, and is not, said. Roading and PT projects have
commitment in the text, the schedule and with funding. Cycling has a far less
certain future.
Cycling projects are typically light on specifics and couched in conditional
language. You will find that actual implementation of cycling improvements are
qualified with language such as “progressively developed, will often, opportunity
for, where possible, will be increasingly provided, ideally, will also be considered,
also planned, will be encouraged”. Similar language is found in some arts &
parks projects. It is generally not found in text on other projects.
Projects have scheduled dates. Again, roading & PT tend to get specific and
early dates and the lion’s share of funding. Active Transport (AT), walking and
cycling, Greenways & parks tend to get less specific or later dates, and less
funding. This is especially troubling in the Greenways and Pocket Parks sections
which will have to be worked out early on, but where the schedule appears to be
‘later on’.
On page 93 we are told that Share an Idea (SaI) found people want a pedestrian
and cycle friendly city. This is followed up by the prioritising of PT, pedestrians
and parking by “key stakeholders” and this is the emphasis of this plan. See the
notes from page 128 for what little we are told of those who decided for us.
We are told that this is but a draft, that it is up to us to confirm or alter its
direction. It will take a great many of us to achieve a plan which includes the
specifics, schedules and funding we will need to change people’s long ingrained
transport habits.
Happy submitting!
Some background from The Press:
The Press 15.8.11 “Rebuild plan reflects popular ideas”
A word analysis, a word count, was done to rate the frequency of words submitted in
the Share an Idea process. The word clouds in the plan reflect popularity “The more
common the word, the larger it appears in the graphic.” The following interpretation begs to question
how accurate this ‘translation’ is. “The word "trams" occurred in the Share an Idea responses but, was
translated into a proposal for light rail in the draft plan.” Are we to understand that the use of a word
was the only measure, be it mentioned favourably or not? Were some words left out?
“Curiously, the word "garden" appears in the Share an Idea cloud, but not in the cloud for the draft plan. ”
Quoting the mayor from a 13.8.11 The Press article “"We've got a vision that seems to have been
widely embraced by people as the vision they had ... People feel really thrilled that we've captured what they were hoping for,"
he said.”
One can hope that the mayor’s earlier comments from a 12.8.11 The Press article will
be acted on “Parker said the plan was a draft, and promised the council would make changes deemed necessary by the
community. "This is not about us saying, `Here it is guys, we're not going to change it, but have a look'. This is genuine
consultation where we gather in your ideas on how to change it." ”
Page numbers (PDF electronic version) with quotes and comments:
Active Transport, cycling/walking (AT) Public Transport (PT)
P 6 Mayors Forward “To face the challenges of a new century in a way that embraces a new
awareness of not just our local environment and needs, but also of the global reality we face. ”
Environmental needs and global reality require low energy low pollution solutions.
The emphasis on PT and Cars undermines future proofing..
“Please engage constructively in this process, we’ve seen destruction over the last year to
fill many lifetimes.” Good advice for all of us.
P 7 Ngai Tahu and ECan support
P 9 ToC
P 10-11 ‘Our Central City’ with map on 11. This is generally the BEST map.
P 12 Share an Idea (SaI). 58,000 visits, 7,000 signed up for eletter. 450 attended
workshops, 10,000 the expo, 106,000 ideas shared.
P 14 What you Told Us
“· Walkways, cycle lanes and things to do along a redeveloped Avon River/Ōtakaro…
· A community-led plan
· Less cars, less buses, less concrete”
Nb: The word cloud shows cycling as more popular than rail/tram or affordable public
transport.
P 15 What you Told Us is broken down into more themes. Transport choice word
clouds suddenly feature light rail, cycling is gone, replaced by ‘separated bike paths’
P 16 “Accessible city A city easy to get to and around, supported by excellent walking and
cycling paths, high-quality public transport, short-term free parking, a network of green two-way
streets, and an efficient and attractive ring road for traffic around Moorhouse, Fitzgerald,
Bealey, Harper and Deans avenues.” Read to see how well this plan achieves these.
P 17 Implementation
Straight forward description of what will be done and priority. Changes to use of
streets is mentioned. AT is not.
P 18 Introduction
P 20 Submissions “Written comments can be made:
· via the web www.centralcityplan.org.nz
· via email to centralcityplan@ccc.govt.nz or
· on the printed form or in a letter either
· posted to Freepost 178
Central City Plan comments
ChristchurchCity Council
PO Box 73001
Christchurch8154
· or delivered to a drop-box at Christchurch City Council service centres.
Commentss will be accepted from Tuesday 16 August to 5pm on Friday 16 September 2011.
To ensure receipt, please hand deliver last-minute hard copies to the drop-box in the foyer of
the HSBC building,62 Worcester Street, Christchurch.
Hearings
The Council will hold public hearings for people who wish to appear and be heard.
These will be held in the week beginning 3 October 2011. The intention is that this opportunity
is used to make comments that are necessary to clarify those made in writing, or for those who
prefer to appear in person rather than write to the Council. No-one will be denied the
opportunity to appear and be heard, if that is requested. However, depending on the number of
requests received, the time available may be limited. ”
P 21 Five Guiding Principles “These are:
1. Foster business investment
2. Respect for the past
3. A long-term view of the future
4. Easy to get around
5. Vibrant central city living
Foster business investment
a. Rebuild an economically viable and affordable city
b. Attract new business and talent
c. Support business through high quality and innovative infrastructure
Respect for the past
a. Enhance the beautiful setting of Christchurch beside the Avon River and Hagley Park, at the
foot of the Port Hills
b. Celebrate the city’s unique Maori and European culture and heritage, and natural environment,
for today's and future generations.
c. Respect the existing street pattern
A long-term view of the future
a. Build-in safety and resilience to withstand natural disasters and climate change
b. Promote a green and sustainable garden city
c. Support a complementary balance between the central city and suburban centres
Easy to get around
a. Promote a city that is easy and safe to get around
b. Support a balance between walking, cycling, public transport and driving
Vibrant central city living
a. Create an attractive and vibrant central city to attract people to live in Christchurch
b. Encourage a healthy mix of housing, schools, entertainment, offices and shops in the central
city
c. Ensure that public spaces and buildings are people-friendly and liveable”
Nb: A balance between modes is sought. How is the balance defined? In this plan it is
clearly PT, peds, cars, cycling. Funding will be gvt, business. Schedule is 10-20 years
“Each project has been prioritised, giving a time frame for implementation.” Nb: Most
transport projects indicate 2012-2016 as we need access. Green ways, which will
connect the walking and cycling access are put off, 2018-2030.
Under Business an economically viable and affordable city is better achieved through
AT. New business and talent will both want genuine mode choice to limit expense
and expand choice. Innovative infrastructure is not continued over emphasis on
energy intense transport, be it prvt or pub.
Under long term view AT is sustainable, builds in resilience and is not so expensive to
repair or abandon should natural disasters or sea level rise require it.
Under easy to get around AT is often easiest and balance will not be accomplished by
emphasising PT while considering conditional support for AT.
Under vibrant: How is it that AT only boulevards, streets for people, are not
mentioned as part of a vibrant city?
P 22 The Way Ahead Insurance Risk is raised as potentially limiting the ability to
implement. “This issue is well known at all levels including central government and is a
significant risk factor that could impact on delivery of the Plan. ”
AT is less expensive overall and can even be provided in rudimentary form while
waiting for the ins co’s to come to the table.
P 23 Other Relevant issues Of interest here is that a great deal of study will occur
after the plan is adopted. Appendices in the final plan will provide more detail. It is
understood that we are in a hurry. Some of this work has been done, but is not shared.
Traffic, PT and Parking analysis will be undertaken. AT is not mentioned.
Specific Project Implementation Plans These will be developed later but are to
include, among other things “Value management analysis for each project
· Economic cost benefit analysis for projects identified during consultation as having a
potentially significant cost on the community, business or developers. ”
On a value for money and multiplier basis AT is nearly always superior. Will it be put
up against roading projects? Central gvt in just released Government Policy Statement
has signalled not.
P 33 $50 million + for memorial and museum
P 37 Green City Introduction “Christchurch will promote healthy, sustainable and active
living in the Central City through the natural environment and innovative green technology.” AT is
not mentioned.
P 40 Avon River Park Here starts a wonderful vision.
“complement the diagonal routes of Victoria and High Streets across the Central City. Road
crossings along the river will provide for all modes of transport.” Nb: Neither Victoria or
High Sts. are shown as providing cycle connection to the river on the map from P 11.
(Pedestrian infrastructure is not specifically depicted on the map.)
“Traffic volumes will be reduced while allowing local vehicle access, enabling the banks of the
Avon River/Ōtakaro to be developed into a pedestrian, cycle and recreation friendly river park.”
P 42 Avon River Park “Pedestrians and cyclists will be given priority in the widened river
corridor with new cycleways, footpaths and river crossings. Road crossings will be enhanced with
paved platforms and kerb extensions. Appropriate lighting will improve safety and ambience. ”
Nb: cycleways and footpaths. This is not a shared path. Great. The road crossings
will need to accommodate both peds and cyclists using the roads and the river paths.
Extensions can force on road cyclists to be forced into traffic creating
conflicts/hazards.
The accompanying map indicates that these plans apply from Hagley Park through the
city to the E border along Kilmore/Fitzgerald.
The schedule is so broad as to be meaningless. What will happen in 2012? When will
it be completed, or merely mainly completed? What is the priority?
While not conditional language, certainly no clear priority/commitment.
$29.7 million 2012 onwards Commitment Questionable
P 44 Cathedral Sq. “Movement around the edges and convenient routes across Cathedral Square
will be accommodated.” The accompanying pictorial analysis shows pedestrian desire
lines. Cycling is not covered.
$12.7 million 2015-17 Strong Commitment
P 46 Cranmer and Latimer Sqs “The Council will modify surrounding roads and footpaths
The picture shows no provision for cycle
to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists.”
paths through these. Fair enough that these, and Cathedral Sq, are for peds. Cycle
parking will be essential as will safe inviting cycle lanes/paths to access and
circumnavigate them.
$2.8 million 2012-20 Commitment Questionable
P 48 Central City Parks Wonderful greenways are shown as open to walking and
cycling. Hagley park, Worcester, Colombo, etc. But neither of those streets is shown
as cycle friendly on later maps. Neighbourhood parks are shown just inside the four
aves with greenway connections which do not run along any streets as they are the
‘greenways’. Green paths through built up areas & open to cyclists on separated paths
is great!
“A new pedestrian and cycle greenway will pass through residential areas in the Central City to create a safe and enjoyable
connection between family friendly parks, plazas, recreation destinations, schools and adjacent neighbourhood centres …. The
location and design of greenways will be developed in association with adjoining owners and
developers to ensure public safety and shared access.”
Really great stuff if as depicted but, it may all bog down in negotiations with land
owners and developers. Add to this that it is scheduled to start & finish late (after
much of the planning, if not reconstruction, is in place?). This has the potential to
blow out the budget while failing to deliver the attractive connected cycle/walk
networks. If we are to change people’s behaviour we will need to make AT the easy
choice from the outset.
$26.2 million 2018-2030 Commitment is questionable given
timing.
P 49 Community Gardens and Pocket Parks
Great. Nb: number of parks is flexible. Size of park ranges from 750-2000 metres
square, or about 2-5 city size sections each. Only 6 parks to be purchased by 2016
with the rest by 2030. This is in line with how the Greenways are to be scheduled and
raise the same concerns. These will require land and certainty of location to allow for
planning. Yet they have no specific start date and are not scheduled until 2016. What
will this do to the budget?
$5.2 million 2013? 2030 Commitment is questionable given
timing.
Family Parks
It is good to see this “The Council will secure four parcels of land early in the development
process through a land acquisition protocol to promote development of the greenway network” It is
concerning that similar language is not found in the Greenways or Pocket Parks
sections.
$3 million 2016 and 2020 Commitment looks good
P 50 Eco Streets “The Council will commit to improved water quality and sustainability
benefits by allocating 10 per cent of every street renewal budget to achieving eco streets. ”
Great! And note the commitment.
“When: Eco streets will be implemented with the ongoing street repairs programme. Temporary Eco
streets will also be implemented with the transitional city implementation programme.
Where: Streets in Central City with a focus on the compact CBD and main streets .”
This makes sense on all levels, just like adding cycle paths and lanes. Too bad such
language does not apply to AT.
$12.68 million 2012 on Commitment Strong
P 51 Greening the Roof
Great.
$2.76 million 2012 on Commitment relatively strong
District Heating
Could be great. Studies to be done to test feasibility. The price appears high and it is
unclear if this will be recovered through utility charges. Another inducement to attract
business back?
P 52 Green Technologies and Green Pledge
Great. Why not mandate sustainable energy/materials use in building code? Lots of
carrot, no stick.
$450,000 2012 Commitment strong
P 53 Green Star Buildings
Great. Why not mandate sustainable energy/materials use in building code? This is a
direct subsidy to landlords who are rebuilding. They will be able to get premium rent.
Lots of carrot, no required give backs to the community, no stick.
$3.5 million 2012 Commitment strong
P 54-6 Distinctive City
“Lanes and courtyards will be encouraged as part of comprehensive development of blocks to
provide further connections and a different experience and character to the primary street
network. The principles of good urban design will underpin a revised regulatory framework to
inspire higher quality in the city’s new buildings while ensuring these relate well to each
other and our public spaces.” And under targets “The Central City has increased access,
connectivity and legibility for all users”
$40 million 2013-2016 Commitment Questionable
P 59 “The Council will encourage building owners to exceed the code requirements through the
standards achieved for new buildings and retrofitting of existing buildings. ”
Just why is it that safety and sustainability have to be begged for, not required?
P 61 Heritage
“A list of the Group 1 and 2 heritage buildings with their status as at 3 August 2011 is provided
in an Appendix” There are no appendices; clearly they were intended. Why were they
left out?
$31.45 million Now (with funding of $5 million annually
for 5 years.) Commitment strong
P 64 Height & Human Scale 4-7 storeys Nb: map on 65 is indicative only.
P 66-7 Good Design
P 68-9 The Grid Nb: picture on p 69 depicts the new central city block. Buildings,
people, cars and parking dominate. Cyclists are relegated to one side and cycle
parking is no where to be seen. The community supported cycling and it would have
been easy to include it here.
P 70 City Blocks, Lanes & Courtyards
The much needed cycle connections from Victoria to the Greenway and from
Worcester past the Square to the park could be accomplished with these.
Current lanes serve peds, cycles, cars. The text here refers to their use for pedestrians
and for parking, but cycles are not mentioned. Submit for cycle use.
$49 million As opportunities arise Commitment appears
strong
P 71 Core, Fringe & Edge Lanes described
Nb: Core appear to serve peds only, fringe are described as for peds and cars and edge
lanes are proposed to break up long blocks for better connectivity. Cycling is not
mentioned. Submit for cycle use.
P 72 Precincts and Neighbourhoods
P 75 City Life “The community also wanted plenty of cafés and restaurants spilling into the
streetscape, and for there to be a reduction in street parking to make more room for appealing
streetscapes, wider footpaths, more green space and cycle lanes.”
Text on cultural centres to be created with “Easy access will be provided to these facilities
through a network of connecting precincts and good public transport networks ”
Cycling is not
mentioned. Text goes on to refer to building much residential housing, including for
families in the inner city. PT is fine, but the regular absence of cycling is counter to
the support the SaI process revealed. Submit for cycling.
There is no mention of cycling or of alcohol abuse issues.
P 76-8 Metro Sports Centre p 76 “and will be easily accessible from the new ring road,
as well as by public transport and new walking and cycling links.”
P 78 “The sports hub will have strong connections into the heart of the Central City, to
accommodation providers and public transport networks, including a potential light rail link”
… “Easy private vehicle and public transport access will be provided to the facilities by the
four avenues ring road (see Transport Choice chapter) and the facilities will
connect with the central area by excellent pedestrian and cycle routes.”
It is good to see the
transport issues raised and addressed. Secure, covered cycle parking will be needed.
$280 million 2012-17 Commitment strong
P 80 Art in the City “These facilities will be retained largely through the provision of
insurance cover. Any further costs regarding demolition, improvements made to the structures
and/or provision of new land will need to be considered when the site and land assessments have
been released.” Not much of a commitment here.
P 81 Community Performance Facility
$31 million 2015 Commitment appears strong
Arts & Crafts Studio Assistance “The Council will look at the feasibility of an arts and
craft studio business incubator complex or provide start-up support for studio clusters.”
$5 million 2012 Commitment Questionable
Professional Theatre Project
$45 million completed by 2019 Commitment Strong
Nb: The sports complex dealt with transport access, the arts projects do not.
P 82 Public Art
$5.4 million 2012-13 start Commitment Strong
P 83 Central City Playgrounds Transport access not addressed. Will they have
cycle parking?
$7 million 2015-20 Commitment Appears Strong
P 85 Library Transport access not addressed. Will it have cycle parking? Could it
accommodate a public cycle hub with lockers, showers, etc. to encourage employees
to cycle, as well? Once again, CCC fails to respond to the community’s support for
cycling.
$115 million by 2016 Strong Commitment
P 86 Tertiary Education The various education providers are described along with
their role in the new inner city. A “Campus Central” and “Student Village” to provide
resources and shared space to the many smaller private providers is seen as attracting
much needed students back with a desirable environment and accommodation.
Cycling is no where mentioned.
$450,000 2012 on Commitment Questionable
P 87 A place for Everyone A lot of great initiatives to improve city life including
access for the disabled, good walking, safety, accessibility. Cycling is not mentioned.
“The key programmes and initiatives that the Council will use to aid the recovery and rebuild of
the central city are:
· Strengthening Community Grants Financial assistance to support, develop and promote the
capacity, awareness of, participation in and sustainability of community, recreation, sports,
arts, heritage and environment groups and their programmes and events.
Funding assistance through the Strengthening Community Grants for groups as they re-establish
will be an important aspect of community wellbeing in the redeveloped Central City. ”
Apply for grants for cycling awareness, education, promotion?
Liquor licensing to regulate alcohol problems gets a mention.
P 88 Lighting in the City
$13.7 million 2012-17 Commitment Strong
Safety & Community House both mentioned. Community House is not slated for
any funding increases. Is there even a commitment to repair/rebuild?
P 89 Living in the City Lots of good stuff to attract all demographics to live in the
city. Cycling is not mentioned. I guess they won’t use bikes.
Residential Incentives Project Rebate development contributions from
builders/developers to make it cheaper to build in the city. “The incentives will be based
around criteria to ensure quality design” It’s a big subsidy for landlords/developers. What
conditions will apply and the benefits to be received by tenants and community are
not spelled out.
$17.9 million 2013-2016 Commitment Strong
P 90 Social/Affordable Housing Some good stuff, limited, but good.
$15 million, 1.5 mill per year for 10 years Commitment
strong?
P 91 Neighbourhood Initiatives Think community centres. Transport access not
addressed.
$5.16 million 2012 to 16 Commitment appears Strong
Housing Showcase Best practice affordable housing technology featured by
building a model home
$200,000 2012-13 Commitment Strong
P 92 Transport Choice section begins with word clouds. Pedestrian access, parking
and PT are first up. Cycling is mentioned in the second cloud, after pedestrian and PT.
Clearly the authors have opted for the Key Stakeholders version, not what the SaI
process asked for.
P 93
Transportation Overview
“Key Projects:
1 Light rail
2 Buses and street stations
3 Slow core
4 Main streets
5 Streets for cycling
6 Enhancing the avenues
7 One way to two way
8 Parking and servicing
9 Wayfinding”
Nb: PT is top of the list, cycling is 5th. Reduced speeds are mentioned for the slow
core. Pedestrians do not get a direct mention. The text reinforces PT as the first
choice.
“An important component of this is to create a people-friendly transport systems that enhances
the choice for public transport, improves cycling facilities, manages access for private and
service vehicles, and provides both on and off-street parking in convenient locations. This is in
line with community feedback. Through Share an Idea, they asked for a pedestrian-friendly Central
City, where walking was an enjoyable experience through integrated green walkway networks with
wider footpaths, good lighting and safe street crossings. They also asked for cycling to be safe
and enjoyable through the provision of separate cycle lanes and good cycle facilities.” … “Key
stakeholders identified… Out of seven options ranging from car-centric to car-free, key
stakeholders rated People Centric – bus and light rail most highly, followed by People Centric –
bus-based, then People Centric – car free.”
Nb: reading this its clear that SaI rated walking first, cycling second and PT third, cars
came last. But ‘key stakeholders’ wanted PT. So, we get PT & cars.
“The Plan has the heart of the Central City being people-friendly with high amenity including
wider footpaths, street trees and public art. Cars will still be able to drive down these streets
but at slower speeds and park on-street and in shortterm car parks. Off-street parking will be
provided in parking buildings around the edge of the Compact CBD.
… Significant investment in a high-quality public transport network will be a key feature,
helping to make it the first choice for longer journeys to and from the city, to reduce traffic
demands and stimulate urban regeneration. The Plan responds to the community’s wishes by
proposing the first stage of a city-wide network of light rail-based services.
… Separated cycle paths will be provided on key streets around the slow core to create
a safe and efficient cycling network. A new bus network will be created passing around the edge
of the Compact CBD with high-quality buses and new style street stations.”
Nb: the focus is people centric bus, light rail, peds. Cycling lanes and paths are
limited to the key streets around the slow core shared with the busses. This is not safe
and efficient or inviting and attractive.
Heart of the city is to be people friendly, and open to cars. Significant investment will
be in a high-quality public transport network. Cycles finally get a mention with what
look like 30 kph shared cycle, car, bus, service vehicle lanes with on street parking in
the slow core. Without cycle lanes or paths this will be neither a safe or inviting
environment for cycling. Cyclists will be stuck in the traffic lanes with busses and
cars. No doubt some will opt for the new wide footpaths for self preservation. What is
the design intent here? Does it encourage walking and cycling?
P 94 Note that cycle parking will come in sometime between 2013-16. CYCLE
FACILITIES, SUCH AS HUBS FOR PARKING, LOCKERS, SHOWERS, ARE
NOT MENTIONED OR INDICATED. Will the cycle parking be mainly at the
proposed mini bus stations?
Part of cycling’s attractiveness is the ease of getting around to and parking near your
destination. If the intent is to encourage and support people to choose to cycle it is not
evident here. Perversely short term car parking projects are featured and will include
on street and conveniently located off street sites.
The first sentence is “new network, focused more on the needs of walking and cycling,
while offering modern, efficient public transport services, that is sustainable and resilient and
offers residents choice,…”
I interpret this as there being a single network in the CBD to achieve all these goals.
How will cyclists get to the CBD? “For people to get to and from the heart of the city, the
Plan sets out to progressively redevelop main streets with wider, treelined footpaths and cycle
lanes, which will often be separated from traffic.”
The next paragraph points out that these streets will remain available for cars. No
bicycle boulevards here. Nb: “Progressively, often” read someday maybe. The
question of how cyclists will reach the CBD mentioned in earlier text is neither
developed or assured. Just how far out will the “main streets” go?
This is followed by “As the Central City is rebuilt, there is an opportunity to significantly
improve infrastructure provision for cycling – both on-street by separating cycling more from
vehicle traffic , and by providing cycle parking and changing facilities. ” Nb: there is an
opportunity. No clear commitment.
I emphasize this observation by noting that PT is stressed, the historical significant
funding from CCC & ECan is “planned to continue”. The devil is in the details. Here
is a devil. Continue reading for paragraphs extolling PT.
The mindset which produced this plan may be well reflected in this sentence “and many
people argue the car to be among the most important advances in people’s quality of life and
independence in the 20th century.”
To be fair this is followed by the need for better mode
balance and the loss of some on street parking.
The listed targets are weak, lacking specifics measures for how we will know when
achieved and with no schedule. Only 4 are directly related to transport and they mix
up travel modes while tending to repeat themselves. Clear as mud.
P 95 Use map on P 11 as the one here is crap.
The ‘slow core’ is in grey and bordered by Lichfield to the S, Armagh (with a bit of a
protrusion) to the N, Cambridge to the W and Manchester to the E.
The paths in Hagley Park are marked as cycle paths. These border all sides, Riccarton
Ave through the park, across the park. These hook into Fendalton, Rossal, Bealey,
Blenheim & Moorhouse/Lincoln.
Greenways are prominent along the river and text states open to cycle/walking. What
will the width of these shared paths be? Min will be 10 metres: 4 footpaths, 4 cycle, (2
metre widths in each direction) 2 ‘amenity’ if they are to be attractive, functional and
future proof.
Cycle Lane Inventory
As all streets are now two way it is assumed that cycle ways shown will be two way.
There are cycle lanes on:
East to West
Bealey Ave from Fitzgerald to the park CONTIGUOUS
Moorhouse from Fitzgerald to the park CONTIGUOUS
Saint Asaph from Fitzgerald to the park CONTIGUOUS
Worcester from Fitzgerald to Madras,
Kilmore from Fitzgerald to Madras, break, pick up at Durham to the park. This needs
to be a contiguous route.
High St from St Asaph to Fitzgerald
Armagh to Durham and greenway
East to West travel has 3 contiguous routes. But, Bealey and Moorhouse are not
inviting or even safe streets. Worcester needs to go to the park. Alternatively
Gloucester could be the cycle street.
Without commitments for world class cycle lanes and intersection treatments to be
scheduled ASAP cycling will not be encouraged. See P 106, commitment is not there.
North to South
Fitzgerald extending past the map to both N & S CONTIGUOUS
Colombo from Bealey to Kilmore, break, pick up at Lichfield and on S
Antigua to Oxford Tce, meets up with Hagley Park cycle paths CONTIGUOUS
Durham to greenway at Lichfield/Cambridge Tce, break, pick up at Armagh to Bealey
Madras from Bealey to Moorhouse CONTIGUOUS
Victoria from Bealey starts/stops suddenly at Peterborough with no connection to
Durham or Armagh paths. This is a major break on a major route from the N into
town. It could be hooked up to the greenways. See Map P 39.
Nb: Fitzgerald is the only contiguous route south. Barbadoes could be when it
becomes 2 way and will be easier to make cycle friendly than the new major arterial
role for Fitzgerald is likely to allow.
Madras & Antigua/through the park are the only contiguous northern routes.
Fitzgerald and Madras are not inviting or even safe streets. Without commitments for
world class cycle lanes and intersection treatments to be scheduled ASAP cycling will
not be encouraged. See P 106 No Commitment is offered.
Antigua is a very popular route and currently connects up to the shared pedestrian
cycle path on Rolleston/Park. There is a cycle path shown on Rolleston/Park on this
map and if this is to be a new separate path it would be great as this area has conflicts.
Obvious Gaps/lack of connectedness ( Per P 107 the one way streets in the ‘slow
core’ are to be two way & includes Madras and Barbadoes)
Many of these concerns are likely addressed by cycle lanes blending seamlessly
with the greenways and slow core, but this only works if the slow core provides a
safe and inviting cycling environment. Concern is that the slow core will be
congested with cars, parking, shuttles, commercial vehicles. It will not form a
good cross town link. Completing Kilmore and Worcester as through routes is
important. Worcester will need a way to get cyclists around the square, or
Gloucester could become the Eastern route.
Concerns
Many of the cycle lanes are along bus lanes. It appears we are to have shared bus bike
lanes such as on Colombo and Papanui. These have been a mixed blessing. When
there are no busses in them they are great. But, there have been conflicts, especially
busses cutting off cyclists when pulling into stops or blocking entire lane when
stopped. There is also the potential for commercial vehicles to use these lanes. Both
the taxi and trucking groups have pushed for this and this plan repeatedly stresses that
access for commercial delivery vehicles is a priority. With proposed higher cycling
and bus numbers and the likelihood that they will be open to commercial users road
safety conflicts are inevitable. This will not make for inviting cycling. P 100 appears
to confirm these concerns.
The cycle path along the river through to Riccarton through the park shares space with
the light rail and busses. How will this be managed? No details given.
P 96 Transport Choice
Some of the concerns raised above will be mitigated by the 30kph in the central core
providing shared streets for cars & cycles. Location and extent of on street parking is
not shown. Car doors opening into cyclists are among the leading causes of cycle/car
accidents and present an effective barrier to safe and inviting cycling. Shared streets
with on street parking will not work without 1 metre separation to protect cyclists
from door swing.
Hope is both raised and dashed “Intersection changes will be made which improve walking and
cycling. All street upgrades will incorporate better surfaces, seating, street furniture, and
adopt new technologies and design for lighting. The street enhancements will include wider,
continuous footpaths, street trees, on-street parking and servicing and the removal of
unnecessary traffic controls and signage.”
Intersections are another leading conflict point and accident generator for cycle car
accidents. Knowing the actual specifics of the intersection changes and where on
street parking will be allowed are crucial. The intersection improvements shown on
page 104-5 are great, but only if actually delivered uniformly across Chch.
Travel Demand management gets a short paragraph. This, along with promotion,
education & enforcement will be crucial if these plans are to be successfully
implemented. The latter is not mentioned. Transitions need commitment, management
and support to be successful.
No budget or schedule provided as cycling is thrown in with other projects. Nb: SaI
identified cycling as a priority, yet there is no specific budget. It’s like it is an ‘add
on’ to the ‘more important’ projects.
P 98-9 Light rail “As part of the Draft Central City Plan’s development, early outline
investigations have been undertaken city-wide into the system form and function, constructional
and system operational implications, and economic viability of introducing a next generation
light rail system at the nucleus of the city’s new public transport network. ”
Nb: This sounds pretty extensive and well progressed. Yet there is nothing in the
appendices. Light rail is a ‘done deal’? If so, was this in response to the
‘overwhelming’ public support from SaI? Greater support was expressed for cycling,
yet we see nothing about studies. Instead we get lots of maybe, ifs and as possible
when cycling is discussed.
At a cost of $410 million this is by far the most expensive project proposed. Add to
that it is fast tracked to 2013 for 2015 completion of the first spur. Its cost overruns
will be paid for prior to other projects even getting underway. It is intended to
complement the existing bus system. Just what annual operational costs are we
taking on? No details.
$410 million 2013-2015 Strong commitment evidenced by
completed investigations and fast track schedule
P 100 Public Transport Bus routes and ‘street stations’ are on the same streets as the
proposed bike ways. It looks more like bus priority lanes shared with cycles. “The new
bus network circulating around the slow core of streets will work by bus routes typically passing
through three street stations,”
It appears that busses from the burbs will use this network
to circulate around the slow core. This will be one very busy network. Not an inviting
option for cyclists.
SaI seems to have made a clear message that people find busses intimidating. CCC
does not seem to have quite gotten it.
“A network of new generation street stations created at key locations along the Central City bus
route. These will be built to a high standard of urban design and created as partially covered
public places to provide shelter, public toilets and where possible off-street lounges. Ideally
these will be collocated with cafés and street stalls that make them great places to meet, relax
and watch the world go by. They will have high-quality cycle parking collocated for onward
journeys.”
Nb: Based on the map there will be 10 ‘super stops’, 3 ‘street stations’ and an
exchange, all built to a high standard. Nothing of this sort is offered for cyclists. There
is no cycle hub, merely parking at bus stations. Some of these should include cycle
facilities, shop, showers, lockers, covered parking. Cycle parking is appreciated and
secure cycle lockers may encourage commuters to take the bus, than pick up their
bike for in town riding.
PT is expensive. Auckland is offering a special $15 a day transport pass for the rugby
world cup. Christchurch offers a $23 per week rate currently. What will that go up to?
Some people may not be able to afford, or choose not to use the bus/light rail. Will
they have a safe and inviting alternative?
$48.7 million with fast tracking 2012-15. Commitment
Strong
P 102 Streets for People Slow Core
“The principle of a core of slow-speed streets supports the creation of a new, vibrant heart to
the city, where a rich mix of land uses and businesses including shops, cafés, arts, culture and
civic functions predominate and priority is given to easy access for people on foot. Private and
Nb: Cycling is no where
goods/service vehicle access will remain as an integral part.”
mentioned on this page. Pedestrians rule, cars will have a place, service vehicles too.
But cycles?
“The design of streets will be set out in a Central City Streetscape Plan and support the use of
streets as public spaces. Vehicular traffic and short-term on-street car parking will support the
Nb: short term on street parking seen
re-establishment of retail and commercial businesses.”
as crucial. Cycling is not mentioned. Is support for streets as public spaces
commitment? Where is this ‘Streetscape plan”? What will it apply to?
The slow core is not really designed for cyclists. What happened to safe and inviting?
How do we hope to encourage cycling? The bus street stations tell the tale. Cyclists
who somehow end up at a bus stop park their bikes and walk. Cars drive in and park.
Note also that what is committed to is the ‘principle’ of a slow core.
$55.3 million 2013-20 Weak Commitment
Appears to be ‘we will do what we can while we do the important rebuild work.’
P 103 Main Streets “Extending from the slow core of streets at the heart of the city, Colombo
Street, Worcester Boulevard, High Street, Victoria Street and Ferry Road will become main streets
with wide footpaths, and in most cases, separated cycle paths.”
Colombo Victoria, Worcester, High, Ferry are the streets 2013-2018 the dates.
Providing for the future is lauded. Mobility scooters and such will need footpath
room. If cycling increases, cyclists will need far more than the 1.5 metres typically
offered. But the commitment to cycling is tentative, ‘in most cases’.
Nb: Look at the labelling on the cross section carefully. The pretty trees section is
labelled “amenity zone, parking” Which will it be? Also note that cycle paths appear
to be narrow. Lane widths are a crucial detail which is missing.
$65.6 mill 2013-18 Commitment is to streets, commitment
to cycles is very questionable
P 104 Streets for Cycling
“To achieve this change of culture, however, people of all ages and abilities need to feel safe cycling. …
These facilities will be among the best in the world, providing perhaps the catalyst for the
largest single change in how people might travel around the Central City itself. … Cycling
to and within the Central City will be made easy with a new network of continuous and safe
cycle routes. These cycle routes will be developed to seamlessly merge the shared slow
speed spaces within the heart of the city with key destinations across the Central City and
beyond. Where possible, cycle lanes will be separated from nearby traffic and footpaths,
while city-wide commuter cycle networks will link directly to the Central City. The safety
of cyclists will be prioritised at busy streets and intersections. High-quality cycle
parking facilities will be increasingly provided. These will be secure, covered where
possible and located at a wide range of key destinations. Cycles for hire will ideally
become widely available at these facilities. Changing facilities and cycle repair workshops
will also be considered. Secure cycle parking is also planned at the new public transport
street stations and super stops to enable multi-modal journeys. Larger businesses in the
Central City will also be encouraged to provide attractive cycle parking, and employee
shower and changing facilities.” Nb: Lots of qualifiers, few clear commitments, few
specifics. The devils in the details and the details are lacking.
It is good to see what appears to be a commitment to a contiguous city wide cycling
network and cyclist safety at intersections and on busy streets prioritised. It is sad that
the rest of the text is so conditional. With a cost of $22 mill projected and this covers
roading as well as cycle infrastructure, what can be accomplished may fall short.
$22 million 2013-18 Commitment is conditional
P 105 Cycle Lanes & Slow Core
The cross section does not include distances/widths. How wide will the cycle lanes be
is crucial. 1.5 metres is inadequate. Minimum 2-3 metres will be required to meet
current and future needs. This shows lanes along parked cars. The illustrated ‘door
swing’ buffer zone of 60 cm is inadequate. Most car doors will swing out at least a
metre. Education, promotion and enforcement will be required for a smooth transition.
Great to have cyclists on left, to have buffers, early cyclist starts, separate signalling
for left turns, painted cycle lanes in intersections. All of this will require significant
education, promotion and enforcement if it is to be adopted safely. This includes
educating cyclists.
The cross section on the lower left shows ‘shared streets’ which appear to provide
traffic lanes for bikes and cars to share. Fine, but without education, promotion and
enforcement the transition may be bloody.
There is no budget or schedule. What does this say about commitment?
P 106 Enhancing the Avenues Earlier the role of avenues as orbital routes around
the city include cycle lanes, which are shown on various maps. In the several columns
of text cycling gets only this tentative mention “separated walking and cycling paths
where practicable;” The pictures and cross sections show cycle lanes, the text makes it
clear that they are “nice to haves” not “must haves.”
$65 million 2013-15 Commitment to roading, but conditional
for cycling ‘where practicable’
P 107 One way to two way
Existing one way system to become two way. Montreal, Durham, Tuam, St Asaph,
Salisbury, Kilmore, Barbadoes, Madras. The commitment to peds and cyclists is again
tentative “As part of the conversion plan, on-street parking will need to be rationalised in
order to maintain adequate network capacity for general traffic, buses, goods and service
vehicles and provide for some new separated cycle and pedestrian paths.
Where possible, within network capacity constraints, narrower crossing points will be created to
improve walking and cycling access across some key intersections.”
The experience with the
Papauni bus priority lane and the removal of parking in front of the Merivale shops
indicates that removing parking will be hard fought, and commitment to peds and
cycling will be easily and ‘informally’ abandoned. The ‘network constraints’ tend to
be those determined by CCC and the commitment for cycling shown here is not
reassuring.
The text goes on to state that the changes will reduce road capacity but pins its hopes
on this ‘catch all’ which defies logic “Its success will be supported by a number of people
choosing to walk, cycle, use public transport and the private motor vehicle. ” A tentative offer
of improved AT will attract more AT users who, along with increased PT and Private
Motor Vehicle usage will not be a problem given the reduced capacity?
Nb: the cross section shows an amenity zone which might include parking and the
picture to the right shows parking.
$75 million 2013-15 & 2019-20 Commitment to roading &
parking, but cycling ‘provide for some’, ‘where possible’
commitment is not there.
P 108 Parking AT is at least mentioned as part of the planning. “The emphasis will be
on providing short-term, on-and off-street parking close to the Compact CBD for shoppers and
business visitors, with long-term commuter parking being provided through either on-street coupon
parking around the Central City periphery or a network of strategically located parking buildings
… Where necessary to support improved amenity and streetscape, on-street parking may be reduced.
However, the overall supply of short-term parking to support businesses will be maintained by
replacing on-street parking with off street facilities.… comprehensive network of conveniently
Cycle parking is wonderful news and
placed cycle parking across the Central City.”
greatly appreciated. The details are not provided.
Nb: the short term parking supply will be maintained. At what cost? Doesn’t the
emphasis on providing parking in the ‘compact CBD’ conflict with changing people’s
way of accessing the CBD?
$74.1 million 2013 & 2020. Commitment to parking is
clear, including unspecified ‘comprehensive’ cycle parking
P 109 More on parking and Wayfinding “The Plan will ensure there is good, easily
understood wayfinding (signage) for all modes of travel within, to and around the Central City.
… Comprehensive walking and cycling Signage … Walking and cycling paths that link key
destinations and provide attractive tours for locals and visitors ”
Wonderful stuff. I note that this is costed at $8 million. We are talking signage, some
electronic. It is more than one third of the $22 mill for cycle lanes budget. We need
professional review of these figures.
$8 million 2012-2016 Strong Commitment
P 110-1 Market City “well served by connected networks of walkways, cycleways, lanes,
shuttles and trams… and activities including trams, cycles for hire, ”
P 114 “Implementation of the Compact CBD will include coordinated changes to public transport
facilities, transport access corridors and pedestrian areas. This is addressed in the Transport
Choice chapter.” PT is featured, cycling is a no show.
P 116 Incentives Project What CCC will offer landlords/developers to support the
rebuild. Of interest “Land acquisition would be used to accelerate redevelopment of strategic
areas within the city or to achieve a better development outcome for the city. The mechanisms
would be used to acquire land, negotiate the development of the land and sell it to the developer
to complete the project. This process could be used to accelerate development on specific sites
and progress redevelopment of the Central City, including the acquisition of land for new
laneways.” Will Greenways, parks, bus stations, etc. have access to this mechanism?
$53.6 million 2012-18 Commitment Strong
P 117 Free Parking Project Parking gets priority in short and long term. “Off-street
Council-controlled car parking within the Central City will be free for up to 120 minutes for the next two years to encourage
residents to return to the Central City to shop, eat and enjoy the great atmosphere. Council will review the two year period, with
the view to extending it. This will remove a disincentive for residents to come into the city and by
attracting more people into the central business district, it will accelerate the growth of
business activity within the city.
This is especially important in the first few years of redevelopment when many attractions could
be relatively far apart, and public transport could still be difficult to use because of the
compromised street network.” When will we transition to our new green city? Parking is
needed, but is it the priority? When will we remove the disincentives for cycling
which also meets these same needs?
$3 million 2012-15 Commitment Strong
Restrictions on Suburban Development CCC will encourage CBD
P 118 Retail Strategy Again, cycling is not in their thoughts, or this plan. “Council
will develop access, public transport and parking solutions that will be implemented on a staged
basis as the city’s retail areas are redeveloped. Parking provisions will provide short-term on-
street parking for pick up/drop off retail customers, with plenty of off-street parking
accessible around the retail cluster…
Public investment
Public space and facility investment will be critical in refocusing retail on Cashel and
Lichfield streets. New car parking facilities are proposed…”
Nb: “Incentives
Financial incentives for retail businesses locating to the compact retail zone will help ” Yet no
budget amount is given. Huh?
$0 shown, 2012 Commitment appears strong
P 119 Covered Market Very unclear as to what CCC will spend $ on given that “To
deliver this project it is critical to identify a variety of private sector stakeholders to lead
the development and implementation of the market. ” Text mentions that CCC will facilitate
development and provide ongoing marketing support. Just how affordable the rents
will be in this privately funded project is unclear.
$2.2 million 2012-13 Commitment is unclear
International Quarter To be developed similar to covered market project.
$4 million + $200,000 annually 2012-16 Commitment is
unclear
P 120 Future Employment & Hospital Redevelopment These are big commitments
by government to bring employment to the City. CCC, ECan and CDHB will fund the
rebuild/expansion of facilities. Transport access not dealt with.
P 121 Epic A high tech business centre to be developed with public & private funds.
Transport access not dealt with.
The cost shown is $120K, but CCC is to provide the land and central gvt. funding the
buildings. Clearly costs will be far greater than declared.
$120K ++++ 2011-15 Commitment is unclear
Free Wi fi in central city
$350,000 annually, 2012 on Commitment Strong
P 122 Tourism PT would be a natural here. Transport is not addressed. No budget.
P 123 Convention Centre PT would be a natural here. Transport is not addressed.
$200 million 2013-16 Commitment Strong
P 124 Transitional City How to get from here to there. “Council-led project team to
centrally capture and coordinate a response to the broad range of quick win initiatives designed
to accelerate the redevelopment of Christchurch. These projects will address a broad range of
opportunities, ranging from attracting business and investment to the city, through to innovative
ideas for achieving positive social, cultural and economic outcomes. The Transitional City
project will deliver a consistent response to all ideas and opportunities, ”
AT is clearly a ‘quick win’. After the quakes many of us took up cycling as it was
quicker and easier than driving. Opening up the city with safe attractive cycle lanes
from the outset can quickly bring people back while aiding in the transition to
sustainable transport options while ‘achieving positive social, cultural and economic
outcomes.’
“Transport Choice
・ Temporary bus exchange
・ Road access plan - CBD
・ Temporary passenger transport shuttles
・ Temporary cycle lanes and streets closures”
$14 million + 2011 on Commitment Strong
P 125 Transitional Market City
P 126 Transitional Green City and City Life
P 127 Transitional Distinctive City & Transport Choice What we will use while
the rebuild is ongoing. Main focus is on PT, roading/cars come next, followed by
“Temporary traffic measures including cycle lanes and closure of parts of streets will be
trialled” with a strong finish for free parking to encourage shoppers and residents
back.
P 128 Implementation through Partnerships
“it is critical to have a shared vision, shared commitment and shared ownership of a plan such as
the Central City Plan. This requires a high level of communication and information sharing,
and the Council can help to make this happen”
One can hope.
“Key partners include CERA, Ngāi Tahu, ECan, central government, property owners, businesses,
international investment community, the alliance of contractors rebuilding the city’s
infrastructure, utility service providers and residents. Each has a critical role to play. The
insurance industry and EQC are also key stakeholders.” Page 19 “The Central City Plan has
been written based on these themes, identified both by the community and key stakeholders.” Nb:
No community groups are listed. The role of residents, who they were and how
selected is not covered. The weighting of key stakeholders and of SaI is not discussed
but made clear in what this plan has proposed and committed to.
From Page 10 “Our redeveloped Central City will be achieved through courageous civic
leadership and the decisions of individuals, businesses and organisations who are the lifeblood
Is this how they see themselves? I note that community and residents
of its success.”
are not mentioned. Are they the individuals?
From Page 12 “More than 100 stakeholder meetings were also held during this period, including
one-off meetings with individual organisations, weekly meetings with business representatives
and various workshop-type gatherings to formulate ideas. Key stakeholders have played a critical
role in working with Council to identify the key activities and projects to revitalise the
Central City. During this phase of idea sharing, these stakeholders have had an equally important
role in helping to define the key issues for the long-term redevelopment of the Central City.”
P 129 Funding
Government, private and PPP’s.
“The “base case” for Council funding is the repair and reconstruction of damaged assets and
property. Beyond that, the projects have been prioritised using key criteria such as their
contribution to achieving the overall goal of helping with the recovery of the Central City,
achieving the aspirational targets and alignment with the five key principles. ”
It is explained that the LTCCP and Annual Plans will be significantly changed in
response to the quake.
P130 Summary of Projects Three staging periods, Now, soon, later.
P 132 footnotes to summary
“3. CCC led projects with zero cost shown will be delivered within existing resources” How much
off budget activity is going on? Where is it reported? What is the likely impact on
rates in the near, medium and long term?
How does the allocation of funds stack up for fairness? This table, NOT a part of the
city plan, provides some insights. As AT projects are lumped in with other work a
very generous 10% of total is counted as the AT portion and finds that AT gets short
changed, again, with 1.5% of total transport spending on AT. Remember SaI
prioritised cycling.
Excel spread sheet showing Totals and Percentage of total spend
From Central City Plan 8.11 Costs in $millions
Spending Totals by category. AT is lumped together with roading projects
AT PT/LR cars
slow core $55.3 Bus $48.7 Ave Enhance $65.0
Light 1 way 2 Green
main sts $65.6 Rail $410.0 Way $74.0
sts for cycling $22.0 parking $74.1
wayfinding $8.0
parking $3.0
Totals $142.9 $458.7 $224.1
% of total spend 7.30% 24% 11.50%
Total of all CCC projects $1,948.5
If AT is 10% of actual cost of slow core, main sts, sts for cycling,
Ave enhance, 1 way 2 Greenway & way finding $29.0
or 1.50% of total
P 136-7 Monitoring and Review What we will measure to see how we are doing
Outcome sought “The Central City has increased access, connectivity and legibility for all users”
Measured by “Walking times between key locations”
Outcome sought “Transport safety in the Central City is improved, especially for walkers and
cyclists” Measured by “Ratio of crash and injury rates per user per mode”
Outcome sought “Increased use of walking, cycling and public transport for trips to and within the
Central City”
Measured by “Pedestrian, cycle counts and public transport patronage figures”
P 142-3 Infrastructure Programmes “Before many of the new projects, such as main streets and
green spaces can be completed, the programme to reconstruct and repair damaged infrastructure and re-
establishment of key services must be completed.
Once baseline costs for this work are finalised, a coordinated recovery programme incorporating
infrastructure recovery and development projects can be completed. Some new projects may need
Text provides some detail on how
to wait until infrastructure is available.”
repairs/rebuilds are to be prioritised and the thinking behind it.
“Protecting future options
When infrastructure is being designed, provision should be made to protect future development.
For example, possible light rail corridors should be allowed for.”
Good common sense. It would have been nice to see it applied to AT and a future in
which energy is far more costly then today.
P 144 Continued “These costs have been included in the Council’s overall estimate of $2.3
billion for city-wide damage to infrastructure, and are base-line costs for restoring “like with
like”.
Lying outside the $2.3 billion programme of works are:
・ Additional work to improve resilience or ground strengthening.
・ Preliminary estimates of the likely costs of repairing parking buildings and the Bus Exchange,
totalling $27 million .
・ Other Council facilities, such as the Civic Offices and Central Library.
・ V-Base facilities, such as the Town Hall and Convention Centre.
These figures are all subject to ongoing re-assessment, and final costs for infrastructure
recovery are likely to change.”Some of this will be covered by insurance/central gvt.
Still, with these sorts of price tags, and each $500mill of Borrowing over 10 years
adding 1% to rates, we may need to cut back on some of the big ticket items.
The costings on this page indicate $358.7 million in base costs, subject to increase, to
replace what has been lost, like for like. $90.6 mill more to be spent in the next 2
years, $179 mill in years 3-4 and $89.4 mill after that to complete the infrastructure
rebuild. It is not clear how much of this will be funded by insurance/central gvt. (I
have read elsewhere at least half and likely more.) Understandably there are still a lot
of unknowns and the text stresses that these figures are likely to rise.
P 145 Marketing How CCC will promote us. End of plan.
